What if the bayonet was invented earlier?

I'm afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the subject of my post, which is "what if the bayonet was invented earlier", not "why wasn't it invented earlier" - a separate subject of which I am not particularly interested. The focus on the latter has been an unnecessary distraction.


Quite to the contrary. Understanding why something happened is the best way of determining how it might have happened differently.

We've explained how the concept needed to "evolve". With the historical process now understood, you can choose to either speed up that "evolution" or impose a "revolution" instead.

Which will it be? An earlier transition to flintlocks resulting in a less finicky gun which can handle a bayonet more readily? A "genius" receiving the "inspiration" to invent the bayonet earlier? Or something else entirely? The choice is yours to make.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what musketmen used as backup weapons when armor was still commonly worn? They used the musket butt as a club, and also carried a rapier. I submit that a bayonet would have been at least as effective as a rapier and therefore plate armor is not an explanation for the lack of bayonets.

It is, though not directly. Heavy cavalry of that time couldn`t be countered by arquebus/musket armed infantry, thus there were pikemen which could not be replaced by infantry with bayonets. You would have a point, if infantry with firearms was widespread/decisive formation on the battlefield. It was not until late 17th century, when guns became more effective and widespread. Cavalry was still decisive formation, and until it was armoured, which made pikemen necessary, bayonets were not needed. Hand weapon or musket butt was enough, because musketeers weren`t supposed to fight in close combat - cavalry and pikemen were there to do the job.
 
Backing for the following is the research done by more educated posters than myself:

I think the best way to make an earlier bayonet is to have a faster development of the flintlock.

There are other possible arguments, but this is the one I find most convincing - flintlocks mean that having the musket as standard infantry equipment is a good idea, and that means that the issue of blocking the fire of the gun when the bayonet is attached becomes a major impediment, and being able to make improvised polearms so as to drop the pikes and use even more muskets is desirable. There's no reason not to develop it then, as opposed to it being something that won't be that big a deal anyway.

You could have some inspired invention, but it would likely languish for a while if the circumstances it was invented in didn't make it worth the cost and trouble.
 
Quite to the contrary. Understanding why something happened is the best way of determining how it might have happened differently.

We've explained how the concept needed to "evolve". With the historical process now understood, you can choose to either speed up that "evolution" or impose a "revolution" instead.

Which will it be? An earlier transition to flintlocks resulting in a less finicky gun which can handle a bayonet more readily? A "genius" receiving the "inspiration" to invent the bayonet earlier? Or something else entirely? The choice is yours to make.

Maybe you should just admit you misunderstood the subject of my thread and move on. You are welcome to start another thread for your area of interest. On this one we will stay on topic. I have drawn my conculsions, that bayonets need not "evolve" from flintlocks, and that bayonet equipped matchlocks would be revolutionary.
 
Apparently, to Tallwingedgoat, the bayonet being invented earlier is like deciding to research Economics earlier in Civilization II.

Or worse, since at least that acknowledges the fact certain things lead up to it happening and that you'd need to address that to construct an alternate outcome.

Why would someone develop bayonets for something so heavy and cumbersome as a matchlock? No one would say "Hey why don't we stick knives on these things to make them even heavier and more unwieldy".
 
I have drawn my conculsions, that bayonets need not "evolve" from flintlocks, and that bayonet equipped matchlocks would be revolutionary.

I contend your conclusions need more support. Bayonet-equipped matchlocks would certainly prove to be underwhelming weapons against people equipped with proper melee tools and most of all cavalry. They would still cost a fair amount of cash to produce and still add to the total weight of the soldier's equipment. They would not be enough to create the rate of fire that would make cavalry useless against formed infantry by reducing the pike. That's exactly what everyone has been talking about.

Some genius will discover them, people will say "neat", someone might even try them, then they will be found wanting and forgotten for a century or so until people invent flintlocks and gun squares.
 
It is, though not directly. Heavy cavalry of that time couldn`t be countered by arquebus/musket armed infantry, thus there were pikemen which could not be replaced by infantry with bayonets. You would have a point, if infantry with firearms was widespread/decisive formation on the battlefield. It was not until late 17th century, when guns became more effective and widespread. Cavalry was still decisive formation, and until it was armoured, which made pikemen necessary, bayonets were not needed. Hand weapon or musket butt was enough, because musketeers weren`t supposed to fight in close combat - cavalry and pikemen were there to do the job.

As I've said, even if that were true and pikemen are still required to defend against cavalry, the pike and shot formation still benefit from bayonets on the muskets. It is after all more effective than drawing the rapier. In any case having all your musketmen armed with long bayonets can not help but reduce the need for pikes.

Your answer seems to be that pikes would remain in use, albeit in lesser porportion should the bayonet and matchlock combo become standard. That seems to me a reasonable possibility.
 
Apparently, to Tallwingedgoat, the bayonet being invented earlier is like deciding to research Economics earlier in Civilization II.

Or worse, since at least that acknowledges the fact certain things lead up to it happening and that you'd need to address that to construct an alternate outcome.

Why would someone develop bayonets for something so heavy and cumbersome as a matchlock? No one would say "Hey why don't we stick knives on these things to make them even heavier and more unwieldy".

Apparently according to Elfwine, the sandwich couldn't possibly be invented earlier. Because what use would earlier people have for meat between two slices of bread? Had it been invented earlier it would be forgotten because people were doing just fine without it. :rolleyes:
 
As I've said, even if that were true and pikemen are still required to defend against cavalry, the pike and shot formation still benefit from bayonets on the muskets. It is after all more effective than drawing the rapier. In any case having all your musketmen armed with long bayonets can not help but reduce the need for pikes.

Your answer seems to be that pikes would remain in use, albeit in lesser porportion should the bayonet and matchlock combo become standard. That seems to me a reasonable possibility.

Speaking for myself here, apologies to thrashing mad.
Other than the tiny obstacle that bayonet-equipped matchlocks aren't very effective, I suppose it could work like that. They don't reduce the need for pikes because pikes are much, much, much better vs. cavalry. The rapier is also more effective at its task than the clumsy weapon of a bayonet+matchlock as a melee weapon.

Apparently according to Elfwine, the sandwich couldn't possibly be invented earlier. Because what use would earlier people have for meat between two slices of bread? Had it been invented earlier it would be forgotten because people were doing just fine without it. :rolleyes:

Not even remotely the same thing. I'm all for the use of metaphor in argument, but this is a bad metaphor for the argument.

As RGB explained, there's a problem with just saying "Hey let's have bayonets" in the matchlock era. Unless you address the reasons it didn't happen, which is beyond not having a genius having some Eureka! moment, you won't meaningfully change things.

The socket bayonet may not need the existence of earlier bayonets, but bayonet-armed guns have to be an improvement to be used to any great extent.
 
Not even remotely the same thing. I'm all for the use of metaphor in argument, but this is a bad metaphor for the argument.

As RGB explained, there's a problem with just saying "Hey let's have bayonets" in the matchlock era. Unless you address the reasons it didn't happen, which is beyond not having a genius having some Eureka! moment, you won't meaningfully change things.

The socket bayonet may not need the existence of earlier bayonets, but bayonet-armed guns have to be an improvement to be used to any great extent.

The metaphor is perfectly adapt since the proposition of this thread is not "what if bayonets suddently became widespread earlier?" It is, once again "what if bayonet was invented earlier". What would be the implications and effects?

Now it's fair to say that it may not catch on for various technical reasons (of which none proposed so far seems convincing), but to say that it couldn't catch on simply because it wasn't invented earlier or that there were (inferior) alternatives is tantamount to saying the sandwich couldn't catch on if invented earlier because people had other things to eat.

Your claim that matchlock and bayonet would be inferior to rapier needs further proof than your saying so. Have you examined many matchlocks? How is it inferior? Was the matchlock too heavy? Then why did the plug bayonet and early heavy flintlock combo catch on? Though some matchlocks were heavy, there were also light and handy matchlocks. If the bayonet was invented, it seems logical matchlock makers would gravitate toward the lighter variety than to simply abandon the bayonet.
 
Then why did the plug bayonet and early heavy flintlock combo catch on? Though some matchlocks were heavy, there were also light and handy matchlocks. If the bayonet was invented, it seems logical matchlock makers would gravitate toward the lighter variety than to simply abandon the bayonet.

More accurately, the bayonet in its various forms coextisted with other white arms in infantry for over a century, before finally becoming universal.

Its earlier appearance would likely mean a longer period of coexistance rather than an earlier revolution. And notably, infantry units were still carrying all-purpose blades even in the bayonet age as backup arms.

If as TM says you go back to the 16th c. I doubt the bayonet would take off at all in any big way - and the rapier thing becomes misleading, smallswords being much less widely used than hacking side-blades that never disappeared from the kit anyway.

The only real question is, if, in the mid-17th c. the socket bayonet is invented, instead of the plug being used first, will the impact be revolutionary? I can't really answer that, without knowing what kind of gun it's attached to and what kind of wars are being fought, but longer coexistance, once again, seems more likely than abandonment of pre-bayonet tactics. Certainly you could theoretically see armies like the Dutch and the Swedes adapting them early, to maximise the increasing firepower and still retain some melee protection. But historical Sweden used pike far longer than most other countries, whether for reasons of pecuniary want or tactical considerations. Either way, it's a bit of a strike against the bayonet as the sole weapon much earlier than historically.
 
The metaphor is perfectly adapt since the proposition of this thread is not "what if bayonets suddently became widespread earlier?" It is, once again "what if bayonet was invented earlier". What would be the implications and effects?

Now it's fair to say that it may not catch on for various technical reasons (of which none proposed so far seems convincing), but to say that it couldn't catch on simply because it wasn't invented earlier or that there were (inferior) alternatives is tantamount to saying the sandwich couldn't catch on if invented earlier because people had other things to eat.

No, its not. There is no reason for it to be invented earlier with any impact large enough to notice unless and until the problems you are determined to ignore are addressed.

So except for the ubergeeky who think *insert name *here** inventing the bayonet in *insert year* is cool, the bayonet being invented earlier has no real impact. And speaking as someone who is on the fifth step for a twelve step program for that, that's really, really minor.

The sandwich doesn't take any developments of slabs o' meat - instead of getting your hands greasy, you put your slab of meat between two pieces of bread. The bayonet not being anything other than a flash in the pan does require a change to existing weapons, tactics, and so on. And there's no reason it will inspire them on its own. Now if matchlock + bayonet was somehow superior, then maybe people would act accordingly. But it isn't - its less effective vs. cavalry and more awkward and unwieldy in general than the other "white weapons".

Your claim that matchlock and bayonet would be inferior to rapier needs further proof that your saying so. How is it inferior? Was the matchlock too heavy? Then why did the plug bayonet and early heavy flintlock combo catch on?
Because the flintlock isn't as heavy and unwieldy as the matchlock?

Though some matchlocks were heavy, there were also light and handy matchlocks. If the bayonet was invented, it seems logical matchlock makers would gravitate toward the lighter variety than to simply abandon the bayonet.
It seems logical only if you think the bayonet is going to somehow make up for the fact the pike does the job it is supposed to do better in the first place. And the matchlock does not produce sufficient, effective firepower to justify relying on firepower - so we go back to you ignoring what everyone else has been saying.

Meanwhile, the light and handy matchlocks aren't the ones used by standard infantry - i.e., the ones which are going to be using the bayonet.

No one deliberately used the heavy form just to frustrate bayonet lovers.
 
Maybe you should just admit you misunderstood the subject of my thread and move on.


You need to admit that, much like your earlier ideas regarding sailing ships with rams, your knowledge of this topic is somewhat lacking.

On this one we will stay on topic.

All of us responding to your increasingly desperate attempts to ignore this idea's central question are staying on topic. You're fixated on bayonets being developed earlier because you're either failing to realize or deliberately ignoring the point that bayonets must be successfully utilized in order for them to stick around. (Puns intended.)

We're actually looking at what would have to change for bayonets to be adopted earlier while you're mindlessly ISOTing bayonets where they don't belong and can't be used.

I have drawn my conculsions...

And, like your "conclusions" regarding sailing ships with rams, they are ill informed.

... that bayonets need not "evolve" from flintlocks...

No one is suggesting that flintlocks are necessary. A less cumbersome firearm which can be more easily used as a poleam is necessary. A flintlock is a less cumbersome firearm that a matchlock, but it's not the only firearm less cumbersome than a matchlock.

... and that bayonet equipped matchlocks would be revolutionary.

You've been told this before and provided links which explain it too. Bayonets on the vast majority OTL matchlocks would be useless because those weapons are ill suited for bayonet use.

You just don't stick a large knife on the end of a gun and hope it's frightfulness keeps people away from you. You have to stick a large knife on the end of gun and then successfully disembowel a man or horse with that knife for the idea to be adopted.

The idea isn't enough, the idea has to be shown to be useful too. Until you have a firearm with which a bayonet can be used, the idea alone won't be enough.
 
Why would someone develop bayonets for something so heavy and cumbersome as a matchlock? No one would say "Hey why don't we stick knives on these things to make them even heavier and more unwieldy".
Unwieldness of matchlock musket had nothing to do with the type of lock. Flintlock muskets became lighter because there were less concern with heavy armour which was already fading out.

As I've said, even if that were true and pikemen are still required to defend against cavalry, the pike and shot formation still benefit from bayonets on the muskets. It is after all more effective than drawing the rapier. In any case having all your musketmen armed with long bayonets can not help but reduce the need for pikes.

Your answer seems to be that pikes would remain in use, albeit in lesser porportion should the bayonet and matchlock combo become standard. That seems to me a reasonable possibility.
You must to consider that before shift from pikes to bayonets the pikes were much shorter than in 16th century, extending in front of the first rank not much than musket with bayonet was able to reach. Also infantry and most of cavalry was unarmoured, in opposite to 16th century.
 
Unwieldness of matchlock musket had nothing to do with the type of lock. Flintlock muskets became lighter because there were less concern with heavy armour which was already fading out.

Whether or not it has anything to do with the type of lock, the existing matchlocks that we're supposed to make bayonets for are heavy and unwieldy - and I am not sure how much heavy armor (which has been fading out since there were firearms) requires something so heavy as to require a firing rest.
 
Matchlock and Socket Bayonet vs Spear/Pike

Somehow someone invents the matchlock bayonet and for example lets have the Royalists adopt this new invention whilst Parliament stick with the orthodox Pike and Muskateer system... or the other way around

First battle:-
The cannon fire and the cavalry faff about on the wings, the infantry come together a cloud of smoke envelopes the ranks of the infantry, as the light breeze blows the smoke away the pike armed infantry stolidly advance and impale the bayonet armed muskateers from 16 to 18 feet away :eek: trudging forward over the corpses of muskateers who can reach out 5 feet (maybe 6) with their spear points

Lets even say the Royalist cav are triumphant they wheel to charge the rebels and are meet..... yes with a row of pointy sticks

In fact even a medieval army would make mincemeat out such an army, for example I have been in a Wars of the Roses group for 20+ years and fight with a spear or English brown bill and it would be no contest, the spear/bill is a fast weapon with reach a matchlock is heavy and cumbersome. You haven't got the firepower to keep the opposing infantry away and your close in weapon is next to useless in close combat
 
Top